Post it again. Here's the link you're trying to prove is bogus.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
He said he had no desire to abolish it where it existed
He said that to cheering audiences who wanted to hear what he was saying, but JD didn't go for it.
AND he was willing to protect it forever by express constitutional amendment
Which was never ratified, even though there was nothing stopping the Union states from ratifying if they had wanted to preserve slavery which they didn't. Repeats snipped.
AND he was willing to pass strengthened fugitive slave laws. He was no abolitionist.
So he said to those who wanted to hear it, but he never did and escaped slaves were allowed to immigrate to the Lincoln run North.
What elected Republican was an open abolitionist prior to the war? I'll wait.
I've already given them. Not abolitionists wearing it on their sleeves, but elections in which representatives who were either elected to vote for abolition, or defeated for trying to preserve slavery. If you want to wait for me to post them again, enjoy waiting.
Damn Right I went there. Read 38 Nooses. Lincoln refused to pay the Santee Sioux the money they were owed under the terms of their treaty with the US...
Once again I agree with you, and once again you're so blinded by rage that you can't see it. Some of your points are distorted anyway, but I won't go into it because it doesn't change my response. I'll post my reply again.
"that's something the entire nation has to answer for, not just Lincoln."
I agree with you. Got it?
We're not talking about the slaves here - the victims. We are talking about the African kings who enslaved and sold them.
Maybe you are, but none of that would have happened if there wasn't a market for them.
They were ruled by kings. The kings tended to sell off political opponents, nearby tribes that had been defeated in wars, disfavored people, etc.
And you think there's a difference between that and paying someone to do it?
and no, I'm not saying slavery was anything other than awful so let's not go there. What I'm saying is they were not generally "bred like animals" and that marriage seemed to be the norm - yes even during slavery.
Good points, but how did the slave holders see it? As humans with families, or as additional chattel
Millions? No, not millions. Large scale Black migration to the Northern states did not start until about 1890. What this shows is that for the first 25 or so years after the war, Blacks simply couldn't move to the Northern states. The laws in place in the Northern states prevented it - as they were designed to do.
Of course you snipped what I said about blacks escaping to the North during the war, but that's OK. I'm sure anyone who is still interested in this thread saw it.
Public sentiment in the Northern states did not support abolition until late in the war.
I would point to the elections in kansas in 1858, and in the Union after Congress passed the Corbomite Manuever and one of the biggest presidential failures in the US signed it, but I won't.
As has already been established, many thousands of Blacks served in the Confederate Army long before the Confederate Congress finally got round to approving it.
Just because you buy that doesn't mean it has been established. As I said, take your evidece to the black church of your choice, and see what their response is.
What PR? He was talking to Confederate Senators and Congressmen then later Northern military officers
He was trying to take the focus off of slavery, but earlier he clearly stated abolitionists as the reason for seceding.
at about the same time there were massive desertions in the Union Army
The desertions were largely over the incompetence of the military leadership.
and rioting in New York City over the EP.
That was over the draft.
And Lincoln didn't talk about ethnic cleansing.
Thanks for agreeing with the point I was making about JD.
He said consistently that neither secession nor the war were "about" slavery. He had said in the Senate for years that what the North - specifically New England - was seeking was to profiteer and build up their industry at the South's expense using the federal government as "an engine of Northern aggrandizement".
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858
Jeff Davis consistently said it was about the economics and not about slavery. He was right.
Find that in his 1858 speech.
Nah. Asked and answered above.
He said that to cheering audiences who wanted to hear what he was saying, but JD didn't go for it.
He said it repeatedly. There is no reason to think Lincoln did not mean exactly what he said.
Which was never ratified, even though there was nothing stopping the Union states from ratifying if they had wanted to preserve slavery which they didn't. Repeats snipped.
there was no reason to pass it after the original 7 seceding states rejected it.
So he said to those who wanted to hear it, but he never did and escaped slaves were allowed to immigrate to the Lincoln run North.
He never did because the original 7 seceding states rejected the offer.
I've already given them. Not abolitionists wearing it on their sleeves, but elections in which representatives who were either elected to vote for abolition, or defeated for trying to preserve slavery. If you want to wait for me to post them again, enjoy waiting.
The correct answer is "zero". You could have saved a lot of time by admitting that instead of trying to spin.
Once again I agree with you, and once again you're so blinded by rage that you can't see it. Some of your points are distorted anyway, but I won't go into it because it doesn't change my response. I'll post my reply again.
Rage? You've obviously done a poor job of gauging my emotions - hint: I don't feel any when discussing this on a message board with someone I've never met.
"that's something the entire nation has to answer for, not just Lincoln."
Just as the entire nation bears the blame for slavery.
Maybe you are, but none of that would have happened if there wasn't a market for them.
or willing flesh peddlers eager to profit.....
And you think there's a difference between that and paying someone to do it?
Can you EVER stay on point? I think its not an act of war against those kingdoms to buy what they wanted to sell.
Good points, but how did the slave holders see it? As humans with families, or as additional chattel
They probably saw it as they would be a lot more content and easier to control if they were allowed to have families which is the normal human state. I'm sure they were happy to see their slaves have children because that meant they would not have to go buy more.
Of course you snipped what I said about blacks escaping to the North during the war, but that's OK. I'm sure anyone who is still interested in this thread saw it.
Certainly some did move north during the war but it wasn't millions. Remember the entire Black population was about 4.5 million at the time.
I would point to the elections in kansas in 1858, and in the Union after Congress passed the Corbomite Manuever and one of the biggest presidential failures in the US signed it, but I won't.
Voting to strip a provision that barred any Blacks from settling in a territory does not equal support for abolition on the part of voters in all the Northern states. As for the Corwin Amendment, I get that its inconvenient for you but it was done at the hand of Republicans and passed by the North's elected representatives overwhelmingly.
Just because you buy that doesn't mean it has been established. As I said, take your evidece to the black church of your choice, and see what their response is.
I've posted numerous Union Army accounts of lots of Blacks fighting in the Confederate Army before 1864.
He was trying to take the focus off of slavery, but earlier he clearly stated abolitionists as the reason for seceding.,/p>
He did not believe secession or the war were about slavery. He was quite clear in that and he said so from the start.
The desertions were largely over the incompetence of the military leadership.
No. There were a lot of desertions over the EP specifically.
When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in January of 1863, which freed no slaves because it exempted all territories under Union control, there was a massive desertion crisis in the Union army. Union soldiers ‘were willing to risk their lives for Union," McPherson writes, "but not for black freedom." James McPherson For Cause and Comrades; Why Men Fought in the Civil War.
That was over the draft.
the draft and the EP.
Thanks for agreeing with the point I was making about JD.
Thanks for agreeing with my point about Lincoln.
The same spam
You have no answer.
Find that in his 1858 speech.
Find that in the numerous comments he made in the US Senate or in his first Inaugural Address as President and in his comments to Confederate Senators and in his comments to Union negotiators.